Skip to Content Facebook Feature Image

BNO Was Always a Con: CY Leung and Regina Ip Saw It Through Years Ago

Blog

BNO Was Always a Con: CY Leung and Regina Ip Saw It Through Years Ago
Blog

Blog

BNO Was Always a Con: CY Leung and Regina Ip Saw It Through Years Ago

2026-02-06 22:28 Last Updated At:22:28

Lunar New Year is approaching, so the fortune-tellers are back on the grind, predicting what nobody can really know. Most people hear it, laugh it off, and move on. But when politicians make predictions, people take them more seriously.

This year marks the fifth anniversary of the UK’s BNO “lifeboat” scheme. It has pulled nearly 170,000 Hong Kong people to Britain—and now the UK has abruptly moved the goalposts, leaving plenty of people feeling cheated.

So I went back through the old political talk. And CY Leung had been saying it for ages: Britain is trying to take Hong Kong people for a ride. In his view, BNO is a “freakish passport,” built with “sneaky” terms—and the UK can change it whenever it wants.

Regina Ip was making the same call five years ago. She said the UK’s BNO plan is a “hypocritical trick”: it sounds generous, but the benefits don’t actually land, and it won’t truly help people from Hong Kong.

Fast-forward to today, and both predictions look dead right. The real sting is that many Hong Kong people were too trusting back then, brushed off blunt advice—and now they’re left stuck in the middle of nowhere.

Leung called it early: the UK can rewrite BNO rules anytime. Now it does—and BNO holders in Britain feel the shock.

Leung called it early: the UK can rewrite BNO rules anytime. Now it does—and BNO holders in Britain feel the shock.

Britain Moves the Goalposts

The Conservative Party first floated changes to BNO permanent residency rules in February last year.

CY Leung responds in a social media post by warning that the UK’s BNO policy is built on political expediency, so London can tighten or rewrite it at any time—and, crucially, may not even need to change legislation to dial back basics such as settlement rights, compulsory schooling access and medical benefits for Hong Kong people.

Now, that warning starts to look prescient: in November, the Home Office proposes tougher permanent residency requirements, and estimates suggest about 40% of BNO applicants could fail to clear the bar if the plan goes through.

Leung Saw Through the Con Early

When the BNO visa scheme first opened for applications, Leung raised several pointed questions: Is Britain's "5+1" naturalization policy genuine or just lip service to Hong Kong people? If the UK is so sincere, why did it invent this freakish BNO passport in the first place? Why not grant Hong Kong people full British citizenship? Why be so sneaky with all these parenthetical clauses?

According to Leung's prediction, the BNO scheme was merely the British government's stopgap measure—they never actually wanted Hong Kong people to smoothly obtain British citizenship. So they deployed "sneaky" tactics, creating this "5+1" arrangement (requiring five years of residence before applying for permanent residency, then another year before applying for citizenship). During this period, Britain can arbitrarily shift the goalposts to block naturalization. No wonder some Hong Kong emigrants to Britain feel the entire thing is a "scam."

Ip's Warning About Hypocrisy

Executive Council Convenor Regina Ip, during her time as a government official, handled nationality issues for Hong Kong people and thus understands precisely how the British government calculates behind the scenes.

In July 2020, when Britain announced the BNO visa scheme allowing BNO passport holders to reside there, Ip immediately pointed out that while the British government had opened the door, it set up the "5+1" arrangement as a "hypocritical ploy"—empty promises.

Hong Kong people residing in the UK during this period receive no welfare or subsidies and must ensure they have sufficient financial means to sustain themselves. In colloquial terms, they must "fend for themselves", making it a highly profitable deal for the British government.

Ip saw through it from day one: the BNO visa is a “hypocritical trick,” not a plan that truly helps people from Hong Kong.

Ip saw through it from day one: the BNO visa is a “hypocritical trick,” not a plan that truly helps people from Hong Kong.

She noted that after Hong Kong's return to Chinese sovereignty, Britain passed the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, directly issuing British passports to citizens of 12 territories and colonies—a stark contrast to today's rhetoric about relaxing BNO restrictions. This demonstrates that whether then or now, the British government has been thoroughly hypocritical toward Hong Kong people.

Two Key Lessons

From Leung and Ip's earlier predictions, we can draw two conclusions.

First, the British government has always been deeply wary of large numbers of Hong Kong people flooding into the UK. As early as 1977, it initiated legislative procedures to revoke the right of more than 2 million British National (Overseas) Hong Kong people to reside in Britain. The 2021 launch of the BNO visa was merely a stopgap measure—in reality, they don't want large numbers of Hong Kong people naturalizing simultaneously. Today's goalpost-moving to block Hong Kong people from permanent residency shows their fundamental mindset has never changed.

Second, there's a profit calculation behind the British government opening its doors to temporarily allow BNO Hong Kong people to reside there. This business must be risk-free and profitable—if some Hong Kong people don't "contribute," they're no longer welcome.

The "Mass Evacuation" That Never Was

A simple test of Britain’s sincerity sits in what it didn’t do, not what it later announced.

Former UK consul-general Andrew Heyn says that, in an interview last year with a pro-democracy outlet, he was told that at the height of the 2019 anti-extradition bill unrest, people inside the British government even floated the idea of a “mass evacuation” to move large numbers of Hong Kong people out.

But that idea dies fast. It is rejected on the spot as simply impossible to carry out—and the UK ends up rolling out the BNO visa scheme instead, a response that looks more like a policy workaround than a full-on evacuation plan.

As Leung said, this was merely a stopgap measure, leaving room for "modifications" and subject to tightening at any time. This prediction has finally come true today. Hong Kong BNO holders in Britain can only pray their luck holds out.




What Say You?

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

One month into war with Iran, an estimated 1,750 Iranians have died—many of them women and children. People with any conscience, including America's allies, hope Trump will stop and spare the people, but he remains characteristically reckless, with ground forces standing ready. One order in a moment of madness could kill far more. 

Pope Leo XIV is deeply appalled by the continued killing and has finally spoken out forcefully: those who initiate wars have blood on their hands and should not justify war in God's name. Though the Pope did not name names, Trump is clearly one of them—he recently gathered Christian leaders at the White House to pray for his 'Christian crusade,' putting Jesus on the war chariot. No wonder the compassionate Pope is outraged.

Pope Leo blasts “war‑makers” with blood on their hands, warning that Jesus will not hear their prayers—an unmistakable rebuke of Trump and Hegseth.

Pope Leo blasts “war‑makers” with blood on their hands, warning that Jesus will not hear their prayers—an unmistakable rebuke of Trump and Hegseth.

More shocking still: Defense Secretary Hegseth was revealed to have made inflammatory remarks at a Pentagon prayer meeting, saying 'we must use overwhelming violence against those who do not deserve mercy.' The brutality is terrifying. The Pope Leo XIV's remarks appear well-aimed, calling the world to recognize the evil face of these so-called Christian zealots.

At the Pentagon, War Secretary Hegseth was exposed urging “overwhelming violence” against those he deems unworthy of mercy—a chilling call to brutality.

At the Pentagon, War Secretary Hegseth was exposed urging “overwhelming violence” against those he deems unworthy of mercy—a chilling call to brutality.

Since the US and Israel began war against Iran, the Pope has spoken out several times calling for a ceasefire and urging those who started the war to lay down their weapons. But this speech was the harshest yet, showing his anger has reached a critical point. 

On Palm Sunday before Easter, he addressed the faithful in St. Peter's Square, saying those who initiate wars have blood on their hands, God will not listen to their prayers, and they should not justify war in God's name.

Trump and Hegseth's Religious War Framing

The Pope's remarks target two recent events. First, shortly after launching the war, Trump assembled conservative evangelical pastors and leaders at the White House. They stood behind him, hands on his shoulders, praying for divine guidance to victory. The scene carried an eerie religious intensity never before witnessed at the White House.

Second, War Secretary Hegseth, author of American Crusade: Our Fight to Stay Free, drew parallels between the conflict with Iran and the Crusades—when Christian armies attacked Islamic nations a thousand years ago. He institutionalized this framing through monthly prayer meetings at the Pentagon, promoting extreme Christian ideology to subordinates.

Pope's Theological Stance Against War

The Pope watched these two troubling phenomena unfold with deep concern and anger. Framing this conflict as a "religious war" doesn't just contradict Christian teaching—it's dangerous, inviting catastrophe. He was unequivocal: "This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war." He then invoked Scripture itself, quoting Jesus: "Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: Your hands are full of blood."

The Pope directly condemned priests who pray for "war makers," insisting that Christian leaders bearing responsibility for war must repent. His message was clear: supporting a conflict that causes mass suffering is wrong, period—both theologically and morally.

Escalating Conflict and Religious Fanaticism

The Pope had voiced his grave concerns right from the start. Shortly after the conflict erupted, he warned that unchecked escalation would trigger catastrophe, urging all sides to "stop the spiral of violence before it becomes an irreparable abyss." His prescience proved accurate—yet the leaders of both nations, each pursuing their own agenda, have only intensified the flames. They ignore his pleas.

Military leadership has matched political fervor with religious conviction. The War Secretary overseeing operations, Pete Hegseth, has embraced what amounts to religious fanaticism, recently revealed to have sanctified violence during an internal Pentagon prayer meeting. According to the Associated Press, he appealed for ‘overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.’ He was referring to Iran and other Islamic adversaries. To complete this "sacred mission," he suggested, killing is justified.

Call for Unity Against War and Evil

Whether Trump or Hegseth, both rationalize and sanctify mass-killing warfare—a truly terrifying prospect. The Pope’s firm stand today against this "heresy" has greatly heartened those standing on the side of justice.

As long as all anti-war forces unite and continue to grow stronger, we believe we can ultimately overcome evil with righteousness and force the 'warmongers' to back down.

Recommended Articles